We cannot tolerate generals saying they would take "direct action" against an elected British leader
THREATS from a senior general that the army would take “direct action” against a Jeremy Corbyn government show a jaw-dropping contempt for British democracy.
Top brass “wouldn’t stand for” a prime minister committed to international peace, we learn in the Sunday Times, and would be prepared to use “fair means or foul” to stop a PM who “jeopardise[s] the security of this country.”
The outspoken military chief remains anonymous, of course.
But where is the chorus of condemnation we should be hearing from all parties concerned with Britain’s future as a democratic society, with the people’s right to determine our military and foreign policies accepted by all?
After all, why should the military get to define what constitutes a “threat to our national security”?
Few PMs have done more to put British lives in danger than Tony Blair.
Top brass “wouldn’t stand for” a prime minister committed to international peace, we learn in the Sunday Times, and would be prepared to use “fair means or foul” to stop a PM who “jeopardise[s] the security of this country.”
The outspoken military chief remains anonymous, of course.
But where is the chorus of condemnation we should be hearing from all parties concerned with Britain’s future as a democratic society, with the people’s right to determine our military and foreign policies accepted by all?
After all, why should the military get to define what constitutes a “threat to our national security”?
Few PMs have done more to put British lives in danger than Tony Blair.
No comments:
Post a Comment